My EQUIFAX Response

[angry cat]

Recently I wrote a lengthy letter of complaint to Equifax, as a DCA; Link Financial Ltd are processing my data. I have been in dispute with the OC; MBNA for several years now over missold PPI.

Last December, I made a CCA request to MBNA, however MBNA failed to supply me with a properly formatted credit agreement; the scrap of paper that they did supply me with has been deemed irredeemably unenforceable; s127(3) of CCA.

Whilst I was in dispute with MBNA, they sold the alleged to debt to Link Financial, who also have been unable to provide an enforceable credit agreement, furthermore Link have failed to provide the Notice of Assignment, or any documentary evidence that they are legally entitled to pursue me for a debt that I do not acknowledge.

 

I asked Equifax to remove the data and gave them the reasons why...

this is their response:-

 

Dear AC

 

"Thank you for your recent correspondence received on 05 August 2008, details of which have been passed to me for investigation and resolution.

 

Link Financial - MBNA

 

As you are aware, many of the financial institutions within the UK have agreed to share details of their customers' agreements with each other, and this is made possible by storing the credit agreements with one or more of the credit reference agencies.

 

Although the credit agreements are held by the credit reference agencies, the owner of the information continues to be the financial institution, and not the credit reference agency. The credit reference agencies are unable to amend or delete information, unless they have been advised to do so directly from the data owner.

 

With reference to your comments regarding the quality of data provided to Equifax by our subscribing clients, we wish to assure you that we carry out multiple validation checks on all credit agreement information supplied, to ensure that the appropriate information has been provided and there is no conflict contained within this information. However, there is certain information which we are not able to indepently validate, as the source of this information is from the supplying financial institution.

 

I would also advise that the supplying organisation has a responsibility under the Data Protection Act to provide accurate information.

 

The Notice of Dispute process involves Equifax contacting the subscribing company who has provided the data, and requesting an investigation into the accuracy of the account. During this period, a Notice of Dispute text or flag is registered on your Credit Report, to make anyone viewing your Credit Report aware that the data is currently under Dispute.

 

In the case of the Notice of Dispute raised on your behalf with Link Financial - MBNA, the response to this dispute stated that the information held on our database is accurate and therefore no amendment is required to this information. Link Financial also stated that the documtation requested was previously provided to you and suggested that any concerns or queries regarding charges incurred on this account should be directed to MBNA.

 

As regards the revocation of your permission for Equifax to continue to process your data, it is our view, also shared by the ICO, that we are able to share account data between lenders and Credit Reference Agencies for the duration of the contract and for 6 years beyond on the basis of paragraph 6 of Sch 2 of the DPA.

 

This states "The processing is necessary for the purposes of legitimate interests pursued by the data controller or by the third parties to whom the data are disclosed, except where the processing is unwarranted in any particular case because of prejudice to the rights and freedoms or legitimate interests of the data subject."

 

In your letter you also refer to Section 10 of the Act which, as you state, awards the data subject the right to request that the data controller discontinues the processing and disclosing of his/her data. Section 10 sub-paragraph (1)(a) and (b) states that the processing of such data must be likely to cause the data subject substantial damage or substantial distress, and more importantly that such damage must be unwarranted,

 

We do not believe that you have established that, or provided specified reasons why, our continued processing of your data has caused you substantial damage or substantial distress and that this is or would be unwarranted. We feel that it would be irresponsible of Equifax to remove your credit history information, as this may result in you being unable to obtain credit, or being given credit which you would otherwise not have been able to obtain, which may in turn leead to over commitment.

 

For the reasons we have set out above we are not able to remove the defaulted account from our systems. I hope I have adequately explained our reasons for taking this stance. You may want to refer this matter to the ICO.

 

I note your comments regarding Chapter 29 of the Data Protection Act and in particular, scedule ll, Section 12(1) of the Act which states that "an individual is entitled at any time, by notice in writing to any data controller, to require the data controller to ensure that no decision taken by or on behalf of the data controller which significantly affects that indivual is based solely on the processing by automatic means of personal data in respect of which that individual is the data subject for the purpose of evaluating matters relating to him such as, for example, his perfomance at work, his creditworthiness, his reliability or his conduct."

 

I would advise, however, that no decision is made by or on behalf of Equifax relating to the above and although Equifax provide your information to potential lenders during an application you make for credit facilities, the decision made as to whether this application be accepted or declined is made solely by the lender concerned. Equifax provided the information registered at an address in your name, after which an automated process may be used by the lenders concerned to assess the above.

 

Some Credit Lenders use automated Scoring Systems as part of their decision making process. If your application was processed using a Scoring System, the Data Protection Act 1998 entitles you to apply, in writing, to the Credit Lender to have the logic involved in this process explained to you. You can request for your application to be given manual consideration. We would add however that the Act prescribes that this is done within 21 days of the decline decision. This is outlined in subsection 2 of the aforementioned section 12 which I have included below for your convenience

 

"(a) the data controller must as soon as reasonably practicable notify the individual that the decision was taken on that basis, and

(b) the individual is entitled, within twenty-one days of receiving that notification from the data controller, by notice in writing to require the data controller to reconsider the decision or to take a new decision otherwise than on that basis"

 

Alternatively the addition of a Notice of Correction to your address will automatically refer any search carried out on your information at this address for manual review; however I would advise that these methods will prevent all information from being assessed as part of an automated processing and will not prevent just remove one account from this process.

 

For your information a Notice of Correction is a service available to you within the Consumer Credit Act 1974, Section 159. This is a statement of up to 200 words written by you. What you say is up to you, but bear in mind that Credit Lenders are looking at your Credit Report to help them decide whether to lend you money, etc. Any lenders searching your file in the future will see and be able to consider the content of your statement.

 

Equifax can refer your Notice of Correction to the Office of the Information Commissioner for adjudication, if we think it is incorrect, defamatory, fivolous, scandalous, or is for any other reason un suitable.

 

You can apply for Add a Note / Notice of Correction by completing the Ask a Question form located at Equifax.

 

Alternatively a Notice of Correction may be submitted to Equifax by post.

 

I hope the above is of assistance.

 

Sincerely,

 

Mandy Russell - Customer Relations"

 

I don't want to borrow any money;

I don't want to add a Notice of Correction...why should I.

I wan't the incorrect data removed, but Equifax, say NO!

 

Any advice

 

AC

[angry cat]

I quote from the above letter:

 

"Although the credit agreements are held by the credit reference agencies"

 

How come Equifax state the above,

when the OC and the DCA do not hold a valid credit agreement.

If they do hold a credit agreement they must have made it themselves!

 

Perhaps, I should make an SAR to Equifax, in order that I can have sight of this purported credit agreement?

 

AC

[andrew1]

One would assume AC in amongst all that other twaddle this woman has written, she has omitted the word 'not' Although the credit agreements are NOT held by the credit reference agencies

 

This little lady should go get lessons on how to write letters to explain herself in clear and concise English.

 

To be honest, this sounds like the normal 'confuse em and they'll go away tactic' but I personally would begin to take a look at finladers slant on Defaults and ask them exactly what they think a default is for, how long it should remain on a file and what criteria they undertake to ensure the data is actually correct.

 

She stresses that in Equifax " we wish to assure you that we carry out multiple validation checks on all credit agreement information supplied" but that obviously doesn't include the fact that the agreement doesn't exist - ask them.

 

You might also like to ask Link/MBNA if the sale of the debt was an 'equitable' or 'simple' debt purchase. It makes a difference in who is responsible for the debt and the obligations of the agreement. If it is 'equitable' then the buyer buys it lock stock and barrel and takes over the responsibilities of the Agreement, in which case Link should have the agreement and if they haven't then it's a NO DEBT' situation.

 

Finlander is stating that he believes, like thousands of others, that a default is just a temporary marker to indicate the account is likely to be litigated against as the debtor has not paid. It should not act as a CCJ does in sitting on ones credit file for 6 yrs if the account has been settled through CCJ, payment in full or satisfied by negotiated settlement. Either way, the default should be removed because the litigation issue or even the issues over the balance have been resolved. As it stands, the default sits there regardless for 6 yrs and it is treated by Creditors as though you are a bad debtor when that may well not be the case at all. So I would begin to pursue those angles too. I have asked one Creditor these questions and am awaiting an answer, although they have cleared all bad history once I mentioned the Richard Durkin vs DGS case - makes em think.

 

 

Sarah

[angry cat]

The letter is utter twaddle, it is as you say; confuse them and they will go away...I am not going to go away!

 

I have pursued both MBNA and Link, firstly for a copy of a valid credit agreement; this has not been provided. I have pursued Link to provide documantary evidence that they are entitled to pursue the alleged debt. I have asked Link three times now; are you the Creditor? however, they will not provide an answer. Therefore, one can only assume that the purported assignment is an equitable assignment.

 

In any event the alleged agreement has been deemed; irredeemably unenforceable. Furthermore, the entire alleged debt is made up of mis-sold PPI premiums; this dispute goes back to 2003 and is well documented.

 

Account in Dispute;

No valid agreement;

 

The Default was registered initially by MBNA and caused initially by penalty charges and not because of me being a deliquent payer; MBNA registered the default whilst I was in dispute with them and because my dispute became uncontrollable, their words, they passed the buck to a DCA; Link

The default is incorrect and has/ is causing me damage and distress.

 

I do not want the default to be removed because I wish to borrow money,

I want it removed because it is wrong and is damaging my reputation

 

AC

[Mistermind]

Link Financial - MBNA

 

As you are aware, many of the financial institutions within the UK have agreed to share details of their customers' agreements with each other, and this is made possible by storing the credit agreements with one or more of the credit reference agencies.

 

Although the credit agreements are held by the credit reference agencies, the owner of the information continues to be the financial institution, and not the credit reference agency. The credit reference agencies are unable to amend or delete information, unless they have been advised to do so directly from the data owner.

 

The Equifax writer unfortunately missed out a few details which were familiar to her. "storing the credit agreements with one or more of the credit reference agencies." -- "or more" being the key phrase. I cannot see any card company being rash enough to deposit their irreplaceable legal document original, the one and only signed CCA with Equifax. If they did then they physically cannot store the same simultaneously with Experian. Storing CCA with one CRA is possible but unlikely, storing original CCA with "one or more" CRAs is impossible.

 

I infer the writer is saying in telegram prose, that an electronically scanned copy of the CCA is sent as .jpg or .pdf file, by say MBNA to Equifax, who then make this scanned CCA visible for viewing via dedicated network or via protected internet by all subscribing card companies wanting to do cross-reference search when vetting new applications, i.e. Equifax becomes a central reference library for CCA copies albeit an incomplete library, but not a custodian of CCA originals. No doubt the Equifax writer could confirm this.

 

The writer then went on to say that although Equifax holds electronic copies of many CCAs they do not own any of this data, which belongs to the submitting card companies.

Edited August 23, 2008 by Mistermind

[angry cat]

Thank you for your view Mistermind.

 

It is a ridiculous statement!

If all the financial institutions in the UK stored their credit agreements with the three CRA's; that would amount to a massive data base.

Furthermore, if what the writer claims is true, then surely it would be quite simple for these financial institutions when met with an s77 / 78 request, to simply obtain said data from the CRA's, instead of having to go into their archives to find the agreements or, reconstruct them, as the case may be.

 

Many agreements have been found to be simply application forms, which are only pre-contractual. Therefore, if what the writer claims is true, what right do the CRA's have to store, share and disclose consumers data under the DPA?

 

An application form contains a massive amount of data.

 

My letter was actually addressed to the Company Secretary, but has been passed to a customer relations bod.

 

Now here is an interesting though, if the CRA's do hold copies of all our agreements, even ones over 6 years old. I suggest making SAR's to the relevant CRA's in order that they can provide copies of agreements that, the various financial institutions cannot provide.

 

I can see an avalanche of SAR's coming on!

 

AC

[europa16]

"As you are aware, many of the financial institutions within the UK have agreed to share details of their customers' agreements with each other, and this is made possible by storing the credit agreements with one or more of the credit reference agencies.

 

Although the credit agreements are held by the credit reference agencies, the owner of the information continues to be the financial institution, and not the credit reference agency. The credit reference agencies are unable to amend or delete information, unless they have been advised to do so directly from the data owner."

 

Hi Angry Cat,

 

I had exactly the same twaddle from Equifax,when I asked them about a default on the Littlewoods entry (which has no agreement). I queried this comment with them through the dispute console, only to have the question closed with no reply 8) I wonder why?

 

 

[angry cat]

Well, Equifax claim to hold 300 million Credit Agreement records;

 

Consumer Credit Data Services

 

and...they are all accurate, are they?

 

AC

[Mistermind]

If all the financial institutions in the UK stored their credit agreements with the three CRA's; that would amount to a massive data base.

Furthermore, if what the writer claims is true, then surely it would be quite simple for these financial institutions when met with an s77 / 78 request, to simply obtain said data from the CRA's, instead of having to go into their archives to find the agreements or, reconstruct them, as the case may be.

......

An application form contains a massive amount of data.

.....

Now here is an interesting though, if the CRA's do hold copies of all our agreements, even ones over 6 years old. I suggest making S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)'s to the relevant CRA's in order that they can provide copies of agreements that, the various financial institutions cannot provide.

 

I can see an avalanche of S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)'s coming on!

 

AC

 

The info unnecessarily volunteered by the Equifax writer ("As you are aware...", no the public are not aware) has potentially stirred up a hornet's nest for CRAs. As .jpg or .pdf files would be stored electronically, lawyers could consider whether CCA images will be covered by S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) disclosure requirements targetted at CRAs and so form part of the info to be disclosed at a cost of £10.

 

Reading between the lines this central storage of CCA copies would be a voluntary minority activity partaken optionally by some card companies and banks not all, and a relatively recent development. Ten years ago the IT technology was hardly up to it. Low-tech faxing of CCA copies would not have been feasible in high volume. Card companies would always have been jealous about giving away too much info about their good customers, in case competitor cards try to mailshot same. In recent years with the explosive growth of plastic, no doubt some card companies slowly realised the benefits of sharing CCA images outweighing the risks and so altered their minimum-disclosure stance. If such developments are recent, it could be that coverage scope required for the £2 CRA report has not been updated by regulators to keep up. One would not have thought card companies would retrospectively put scan their old CCAs (info out of date any way) and forward same to one CRA let alone two. So, possibly only CCAs from recent years, and from interested card companies, would be stored in the "central library". The CRAs already store a vast amount of data encoded by input and by direct file interchange without human rekeying. What's one extra .pdf file? Experian will not be shy about disclosing their toal of hundreds of millions of records, comprehensive coverage is part of their sales pitch. The modern IT storage scale is not gigabyte but terabyte, i.e. 1,000,000,000,000.

 

Now that Equifax have stirred it up, Equifax can confirm and clarify the true postion so long as they are not scared away by pointblank interrogation, or they have read this thread already.

 

I have inferred as much as I can from the "ridiculous statement".

Edited August 24, 2008 by Mistermind

[angry cat]

Oh Eureka!

Equifax have a true executed (signed) copy of the alleged credit agreement, with all the prescribed terms as required by section 60(1) & 61 of the CCA and...they can provide 'any other document referred to in it'.

 

MBNA could not provide the documents;

Link Financial could not provide all the documents, nor documentary evidence that they are legally entitled to pursue the disputed debt, or have the right to process my subject data.

 

But, surprise, surprise Equifax plc can provide me with ALL the documents...

 

Therefore, I will request said documents from Equifax plc

 

AC

[sosumi]

Hi AC,

I have my Equifax SAR right next to me - from September 2007.

There are no credit agreements in it.

'It' is a cord-bound A4 'book' type report with yellow covers. Ther person who compiled the report asked every department for any info. they had about me and enclosed their replies. Some had but most hadn't, but their email replies were also enclosed.

On the front of the Report it says:

EQUIFAX

SUBJECT ACCESS REQUEST

Under Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998

Name: Sosumi

Date of Request: ** September 2007

Legal Deadline: ** October 2007

I don't for one second think they have 'agreements'. If they had them, surely my SAR should have forced them to produce them?

[angry cat]

Thank you sosumi for, your useful information:)

 

However, the Equifax writer states:

 

"As you are aware, many of the financial institutions within the UK have agreed to share details of their customers' agreements with each other, and this is made possible by storing the credit agreements with one or more of the credit reference agencies".

 

AC

[sosumi]

This is very interesting AC !

[andrew1]

Thank you sosumi for, your useful information:)

 

However, the Equifax writer states:

 

"As you are aware, many of the financial institutions within the UK have agreed to share details of their customers' agreements with each other, and this is made possible by storing the credit agreements with one or more of the credit reference agencies".

 

AC

 

I think I'll start a syndicate taking bets on how many Agreements are 'really' held by ANY Credit Reference Agency - let alone one! I'd make a fortune:p

[2Grumpy]

Their holding a credit agreement is the basic details - who, when, how much & maybe account no, not an image of the real thing.

They call storing those few details "holding the credit agreement"

They really are that stupid!

It's a terminology thing! - Just like them saying that they don't own their data - that's why the DPA is there - If some-one give you some data then it is your data. You are the data controller. You are responsible for it, its accuracy, safekeeping & security.

 

It's time that CRAs were taken down

[Allwood]

I have had the same rubbish from Equifax regarding my SAR from them, it was the same type folder binder mentioned above, which did not contain any agreements for the 2 DCA that put traces on my credit file. I wrote to them and asked what documents they relied on to allowed 2 DCA's into my personal data and they said that they would investigate it for me. My reply from Equifax said that they did not get a response from one of the DCA's and they were removing their trace/search from my file, however the other DCA search would remain because it was in respect of an outstanding debt re Thames/Barclay's and it was BCW that put the trace on my file in relation to the allege debt for Thames/Barclay's and that was why BCW put a trace on my file. I SAR Barclay's in December 2007 and after months they could not provide any agreements and as far as I know they are are continuing their search for an agreement despite having 3 letters from them previously confirming that they hold no agreement in relation to the debt mentioned by Equifax. I have sent everything to ICO 3 weeks ago but they have not acknowledge my letter to them as yet.

[sosumi]

2Grumpy Re: My EQUIFAX Response

Their holding a credit agreement is the basic details - who, when, how much & maybe account no, not an image of the real thing.

They call storing those few details "holding the credit agreement"

They really are that stupid!

It's a terminology thing! - Just like them saying that they don't own their data - that's why the Data Protection Act is there - If some-one give you some data then it is your data. You are the data controller. You are responsible for it, its accuracy, safekeeping & security.

 

It's time that CRAs were taken down

I believe we could do something with the reply AC has received.

I'm tempted to write to each CRA, quote that letter, and ask them if they do have the Credit Agreements - and if so, which CRA has them? After all, the reply is specific...

I think 2Grumpy's spot on, but it could be fun to ask:p

I took my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) from Equifax by the binding and gave it a good shake last night... no credit agreements fell out. ;-)

[sosumi]

PS: Check out the Kitemarks on this Equifax webpage:

Debt Recovery and Tracing

[angry cat]

I believe we could do something with the reply AC has received.

I'm tempted to write to each CRA, quote that letter, and ask them if they do have the Credit Agreements - and if so, which CRA has them? After all, the reply is specific...

I think 2Grumpy's spot on, but it could be fun to ask:p

I took my S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) from Equifax by the binding and gave it a good shake last night... no credit agreements fell out. ;-)

 

I agree, the writer of the Equifax letter is specific...!

 

AC

[angry cat]

Right, we can rule out; Experian.

 

by Paul Lever, Director's Office, Experian: 26th August 2008

 

"Although Companies are not obliged to supply us with an actual copy of the agreement you signed, a voice recording or copies of computer records, they will investigate our comments and notify us whether the data provided complies with the relevant legislation and guidance" [End Quote]

 

That only leaves one other CRA; CallCredit.

 

AC

[sosumi]

CallCredit, part of the Skipton Group:

The Skipton Group

 

I'm going to try Checkmyfile.com AC, as we're both paying for the service. They give us 'unlimited access to triple agency reports'... maybe they'll know?

[Penfold92]

We are now in December...any further news on this thread AC?

 

Subbing with interest